I hadn't thought of the Damore fiasco in a while. I'm not particularly pleased to revisit it. To me, it was a strong indicator to those in industry that a good-

I hadn't thought of the Damore fiasco in a while. I'm not particularly pleased to revisit it. To me, it was a strong indicator to those in industry that a good-faith attempt at discussion on potentially controversial topics can blow up _badly_. One is better off to keep silent and not stick one's neck out. Since then, I've seen worrying trends in academia that suggest it will follow suit... In the years since 2017, there has been a strong push for scientists to take upon themselves the responsibility for not just conducting research but also for the way the public discussion unfolds. To so do, they collaborate to create uniform messaging so that bad actors cannot find disagreements over details and implications and use them to sow divisions among the general public or, at worst, inflict harm on populations deemed vulnerable. This creates problems in that scientists are pressured to be silent with their own disagreements. (e.g. One should not value one's individuality over solidarity.) This is particularly acute if one is in the minority of opinion. My concern is that over time, this pressure will diminish variance in opinion on any given topic. Variance will become invariance, and that invariance will then be misinterpreted as proof of Truth. Any research or even opinion at odds with it become outrageous. As this unfolds, more and more people will fall into the same trap as the author --- dismissing unpalatable albeit tendentiously backed arguments as unscientific and reflective of deep, un-measurable cultural evils while accepting extrapolations from similarly tendentious research that backs a more acceptable narrative, e.g. "because the authors of the paper are women, ... we can expect 10 percent fewer citations." I find all of this deeply dispiriting. The capacity for science to produce models that reflect the natural world depends on the free dissemination and interrogation of all ideas. Though John Stuart Mill wrote on free speech, his works are even more important in science. If people cannot freely question broadly and deeply held beliefs, they risk losing the knowledge of _why_ they are so deeply held by so many. If that ever happens, we will have lost something truly precious.